[Taxacom] Help with finding a paper
Dean Pentcheff
pentcheff at gmail.com
Thu Oct 8 01:37:56 CDT 2015
Pardon me for being Debbie Downer here, but... The entire enterprise of
taxonomy and digitization, while utterly (and truly) important to those
involved in it, is barely a zit on the side of the combined research
enterprise. Wrapping reasoning about scientific publishing and funding as a
whole around taxonomy is, to be charitable, parochial. On that scale,
taxonomy just doesn't matter, and certainly doesn't constitute an
"industry".
-Dean
--
Dean Pentcheff
pentcheff at gmail.com
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Buying a research paper can be a valid use of funds, yes, but it can also
> be a way to dispose of funding that would otherwise have to be used
> unprofitably. The move to open access means that a huge proportion of
> research funding will have to be diverted to getting papers published. I'm
> speculating that both publishers and institutions with relatively
> unprofitable public good obligations both have a vested interest here. I'm
> not jealous/envious of anything. I'm just sick of seeing public money spent
> cheaply, instead of on the original taxonomic research that it was intended
> for. Perhaps not surprisingly, many scientists and managers are more
> concerned with making a living than they are with the actual science. There
> is a fine line here, but it is often crossed. We have umpteen digitisation
> projects all digitising the same stuff as each other. We have millions
> (worldwide) being wasted on databasing unrevised specimens. The list goes
> on. It simply IS
> "driving an industry".
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 8/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Help with finding a paper
> To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Thursday, 8 October, 2015, 2:24 PM
>
>
>
> On 10/7/2015 6:10 PM, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > So have you been a senior manager in an
> institution which uses public funding for taxonomic
> research?
> Yes, I have, as well as serving as
> a National Science Foundation Program
> Officer giving away $13 million a year, dealing
> with oversight, IDC
> rates and approval of
> expenditures. Everyone is under pressure to
> think up projects that will bring in and spend
> research money, but the
> competition usually
> means that they cannot be total bullshit, although
> some occasionally are. Strangely, many great
> advances are made by
> people on projects
> accused of such bs by the jealous or envious. But,
> your example would require that this is
> commonplace enough to drive an
> industry.
> Not a chance. And, your example suggests an institution
> gets
> a 100% ICD that becomes unrestricted
> for unsupervised expenditures, and
> I have
> never seen such a thing, nor heard credible first-hand
> examples.
> Buying a research paper is a
> valid use of funds, so your example of it
> being done to waste money is ludicrous. Find
> a librarian that would
> agree to such an
> example. Every library on earth has to prioritize
> expenditures, and has a backlog of things that
> are validly needed. Such
> an example simply
> would not allow such a person to survive in an
> institution.
>
> Mike
>
>
> > I haven't, but, by your argument, if
> you haven't either, then you don't know what you are
> talking about either, so my speculation could be true as far
> as you know. I am talking about a situation where the
> institution has the opportunity to grab more public funding
> than it can cope with if it had to use all of the
> non-overheads for actual research, due to having too few
> scientists, and occupying most of their time with other more
> profitable commercial work. So, either, they turn down the
> extra public funding because they don't have the
> manpower/time to spend it on research, or they take it
> anyway, grab the overheads, and spend the rest on things
> which don't require any science to be done, but which
> can still be spun as part of the scientific research (e.g.
> subscriptions, databasing, travel, etc.) Someone I know who
> does work as a scientist in such an
> > institution has more than
> once described to me how he and his colleagues are under
> pressure from their employer to think up [quote]any bullshit
> project[unquote] to spend research funding on. How
> widespread a problem this is in the world I do not know.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------
> > On Thu, 8/10/15, Michael A. Ivie <mivie at montana.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Help
> with finding a paper
> > To:
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > Received: Thursday, 8
> October, 2015, 12:06 PM
> >
> > Wow, glad you understand
> > that this is speculation,
> because this is
> > really
> nonsense. What possible economic model
> > are you studying? Clearly
> > you have never
> > been involved in actually
> keeping an institution open,
> > done the books, administered
> a grants program
> > or
> negotiated IDC rates.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On
> > 10/7/2015 4:57 PM, Stephen
> Thorpe wrote:
> > > I have
> long speculated that a primary goal
> > of keeping science funding
> flowing through the system
> > explains most/all of the
> economics. With that as the primary
> > goal, what the funding is
> actually spent on is very much a
> > secondary concern. Many
> institutions "recoup
> > overheads" from public
> science funding. So for every
> > dollar that they can spend on
> a subscription, the
> > institution might gain a
> dollar, and nobody has to do any
> > actual science, so everybody
> (institution, scientist,
> > publisher) wins, except for
> the public! I speculate that
> > this is what is really
> driving "Open Access", and
> > possibly also the growing
> restrictions on sending specimens
> > between countries (so the
> taxonomist has to travel to the
> > specimen, paid for by public
> science funding!)
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > > On Thu, 8/10/15, Dean
> Pentcheff <pentcheff at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Subject:
> Re: [Taxacom] Help
> > with
> finding a paper
> > > To:
> > "Fred Schueler"
> <bckcdb at istar.ca>
> > > Cc:
> "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
> > <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>,
> > "David Seburn"
> <davidseburn at sympatico.ca>
> > > Received:
> Thursday, 8
> > October, 2015,
> 11:47 AM
> > >
> > > I speculate
> that it has
> > > nothing to
> do with
> > taxonomists or
> environmental
> > > consultants.
> Both of those
> > constituencies are
> > > so tiny
> > and commercially
> > > trivial
> > that they
> > > simply
> don't
> > count when
> publishers develop policies.
> > >
> > > The people
> who can pay are
> > > commercial
> biomedical and
> > industrial
> > > researchers.
> > Their ability to pay (and
> their
> > > corporation's
> legal
> > obligation
> > > to do
> so)
> > > drives the
> system.
> > >
> > > -Dean
> > > --
> > > Dean
> Pentcheff
> > > pentcheff at gmail.com
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct
> 7, 2015 at
> > 3:20
> > > PM, Fred
> Schueler
> > <bckcdb at istar.ca>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > many
> have
> > > written:
> > > >
> > > > Hello
> all
> > > - I
> am having trouble getting
> > a copy of the following
> paper
> > > from
> > > >> my
> usual
> > sources...
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > *
> somebody should study
> > who
> is willing to
> > > pay $39
> > for a paper they've
> only
> > > >
> > > known
> through the
> > publisher's website
> abstract - if they
> > > know
> it's really
> > > > good
> they must
> > > have known
> somebody who has
> > the pdf
> or an institutional
> > > >
> subscription, and gotten
> > a
> copy that way,
> > > and
> > otherwise they just ask
> > > >
> TAXACOM.
> > > >
> > > >
> You'd assume it
> > > would be
> commercial
> > consultants who
> would be willing to
> > > > just
> click $39 away, but
> > in
> their
> > > environmental
> > assessments they never
> seem
> > > > to
> cite anything from
> > the
> peer-reviewed
> > > literature.
> A real mystery -
> > maybe
> > > > the
> > > publishers
> just put those
> > whacking
> great prices on the
> > > individual
> > > >
> articles to keep
> > libraries
> > > terrified
> into
> > paying the whacking
> great prices
> > > > for
> subscriptions.
> > > >
> > > > does
> anyone know?
> > > >
> > > >
> fred.
> > > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > Frederick W.
> > > Schueler
> & Aleta
> > Karstad
> > > >
> Daily
> > > Paintings -
> http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> Vulnerable Watersheds -
> > http://vulnerablewaters.blogspot.ca/
> > > >
> Mudpuppy Night in Oxford
> > Mills - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
> > > >
> RR#2
> > Bishops
> Mills,
> > > Ontario,
> > Canada K0G 1T0
> > > >
> > on the
> > > Smiths
> Falls
> > Limestone Plain 44*
> 52'N 75* 42'W
> > > >
> > (613)258-3107 <bckcdb
> > > at
> istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
> > > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > >
> Taxacom Mailing List
> > > >
> > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > > The
> Taxacom Archive back
> > to
> 1992 may be
> > > searched
> > at:
> > > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > > >
> > > >
> Celebrating 28 years
> > > of Taxacom
> in 2015.
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom
> Mailing List
> > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > The Taxacom
> Archive back to
> > 1992 may
> be
> > > searched
> at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > >
> > > Celebrating
> 28 years of
> > > Taxacom in
> 2015.
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > >
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > The Taxacom Archive back
> to 1992 may be
> > searched
> at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > >
> > > Celebrating 28 years
> > of Taxacom in 2015.
> >
> > --
> > __________________________________________________
> >
> > Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
> > F.R.E.S.
> >
> > Montana Entomology
> > Collection
> > Marsh Labs, Room 50
> > 1911 West Lincoln Street
> > NW
> > corner of Lincoln and
> S.19th
> > Montana State
> > University
> > Bozeman, MT 59717
> > USA
> >
> > (406)
> > 994-4610 (voice)
> > (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> > mivie at montana.edu
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to
> 1992 may be
> > searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Celebrating 28 years of
> > Taxacom in 2015.
> >
> >
> > .
> >
>
> --
> __________________________________________________
>
> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D.,
> F.R.E.S.
>
> Montana Entomology
> Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> NW
> corner of Lincoln and S.19th
> Montana State
> University
> Bozeman, MT 59717
> USA
>
> (406)
> 994-4610 (voice)
> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> mivie at montana.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
> searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of
> Taxacom in 2015.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list